167 / 266
effected during the actual conduct o f a case in Court
(Neale
v.
Lady Gordon Lennox (1902) 1 K .B . 838 ;
(1902) A.C. 465). But Counsel’s apparent authority
is not unbounded. He may not without express
authority effect a compromise which involves matters
collateral to the action. The action in the present
case was for judicial separation and the provision
for alimony during the wife’s life and for charging
it on the husband’s property were collateral matters.
The client, who was ignorant o f the agreement made
between counsel on these issues, was not bound
by the compromise.
(Gordon
v.
Gordon, 88
I. L .T .R . 6).
Is a solicitor's signature by means o f a rubber stamp a
valid signature on a bill o f costs ?
Yes, by a majority decision o f the English Court
o f Appeal. The Master o f the Rolls said that he
agreed with the view o f the County Court Judge
that the bill was properly delivered under section
65 (2) o f the Solicitors’ Act 1932 which provides
that a solicitor’s bill o f costs must be signed by the
solicitor, or if the costs are due to a firm, one of
the partners o f that firm either in his own name
or in the name o f the firm, or be enclosed in, or
accompanied by, a letter which is so signed, and
refers to the bill. Had the matter been free from
authority his Lordship would have thought that
when the Act required that the
“
bill should be
signed by a solicitor ” he should personally sign
it with his own hand by a pen or pencil. On the
authorities, however, it must be taken as established
that where an Act o f Parliament required that a
document should be signed by a person, then prima
facie the Act was satisfied
i f the person himself
placed
on the document an engraved representation o f his
signature by means o f a rubber stamp. His Lordship
expressed no view on the question whether the
same result would follow if the signature was not
a facsimile representation o f the solicitor’s hand
writing, but a mere printed representation o f his
name. His Lordship also held that the affixing of
the name o f the firm “ Goodman, Monroe & Co.”
was a sufficient signature without the addition of
the name o f the solicitor who was the sole owner
o f the firm.
Romer, L .J., concurred. Denning, L .J., dissented
holding that it had been decided in Grayson
v.
Atkinson (1752) 2 Ves. Sen. 454) that putting on
a seal is not sufficient signing and that a fortiori
rubber stamping was insufficient. Having regard to
Section 2 o f the Attorneys and Solicitors (Ir.) Act
1849, which requires that the bill be “ subscribed
with the proper hand ” o f the attorney, this case
must be regarded with reservations. (Goodman
v.
J. Eban Ltd., The Times Newspaper, 6th March
195
4
) •
.....................
What matters should be taken into consideration by the
Revenue Commissioners in valuingfo r death duty purposes
unquoted shares in a private limited company ?
The Company which traded in its own ships with
West Africa had in practice for over thirty years
limited its ordinary dividend to 5% in order to build
up reserves. Trading profits greatly increased during
the Second World War, but the Company was unable
to build up reserves to the same extent owing to
heavy taxation.
The Commissioners valued the
shares at 34/- each and offered to accept 25/- each at
the hearing. The executors maintained that the
value o f the shares was only i7/ad. The Court
held that the shares should be valued at 19/-. In
accordance with Inland Revenue Commissioners
v.
Crossman (1937 A.C. 26), a clause in the articles
requiring a shareholder to sell his holding at a fair
valuation ascertainable in accordance with the articles
should be disregarded. Under section 7 (5) o f the
Finance Act 1894, the value of the shares should
be that which a hypothetical purchaser would pay
on a hypothetical sale in the open market at the
date o f the death without knowledge o f after events.
On the evidence, the Commissioners had over
estimated the future prospects o f an increased
dividend, and underestimated the fluctuating nature
of West African trade and the difficulty in building
up reserves. (Holt deceased. Holt
v.
Inland Revenue
Commissioners. 1953 1 W.L.R. 1488).
See also a recent unreported Irish case in connec
tion with the shares o f the Convoy Woollen Mills.
Where the defendants exercise a statutory right to have
an action transferred from an inferior Court to the High
Court, and the damages awarded are within thejurisdiction
o f the inferior Court are the plaintiff’s party and party
costs to be taxed on the scale applying in the inferior
Court, or on the High Court scale under a statutory
provision similar to Order XXVIII, r.
2
o f the Rules
o f the High Court and Supreme Court,
1926 ?
It was held that the action was not an action
commenced in the High Court within the meaning
o f section 47 o f the County Courts Act, 1937 but
was an action commenced in the County Court.
Section 47 referred to therefore, did not apply so
as to disentitle the plaintiff to High Court costs.
The Court had a complete discretion as to costs.
(Turner
v.
Jacaranda Clubs Ltd., 19 5 3 ,1 W.L.R. 961).
RECENT LEGAL LITERATURE.
Adoption Act (England) 1950 (
S .J.,
27th February,
1954
)-
Admissability in evidence o f Statements made to
79